“The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Curcumin”

March 2, 2017 / Margaret / 2 Comments

No, I haven’t finished reading what I have called the negative review on curcumin, but I already have some preliminary comments, which I thought I’d go ahead and publish today. Here’s the link to the abstract, by the way: goo.gl/Ymh5DD

First impression: this review seems to prove that if you have a thesis, any kind of thesis on any kind of subject, you can look around and always find something to support it. If I wanted to prove that tinsel grows on trees, I’m sure I’d be able to find something online to prove that. Okay, okay, you’re probably right: my example is a bit too wacky. But I’m sure you see what I mean…

Seriously now: what if I told you only good things about curcumin and never touched on the potentially negative stuff? Not that there are many, as it happens, but, for example, what would you think of me if I didn’t warn you about the dangers of having gall bladder issues while taking curcumin? What if I didn’t tell you that you might experience some diarrhea, at least in the beginning?

Well, duh, I would never do that…

I mean, I’m not just some random person writing about curcumin. I actually take curcumin, every day, and at what is considered to be a high dose. I want to keep my smoldering myeloma stable for as long as possible. Oh, by the way, I should mention that I’ve been taking it for the past 11 years (January 2017 marked the start of my 11th curcumin-taking year), which I say is cause for celebration… 😎

Anyway, getting back to the point, I think it goes without saying that I don’t want to be taking anything that might harm me or cause my myeloma markers to worsen. How dumb would that be?

And I wouldn’t want anyone else to be taking something harmful, either. Duh.

And that is precisely why I will always read and comment and post about any negative information about curcumin. And so we get to the review that I mentioned in my January 12th post.

Ah, this review isn’t simple at all…lots of technical jargon…unraveling it could take a while. But, as I mentioned before, here are a few of my first impressions…comments…Ready? Let’s dive right in:

The researchers state the following, both in the abstract and in the body of their review: “The likely false activity of curcumin in vitro and in vivo has resulted in >120 clinical trials of curcuminoids against several diseases. No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful.”

Seriously?

My reactions can be boiled down to the following, for now at least:

What do those researchers consider to be a “successful” trial?
Do they realize that curcumin isn’t a drug and therefore does not and cannot behave like a drug?
Did they check every single double-blinded etc. clinical trial?

I cannot answer the first two questions yet (as I said, I haven’t gone through the entire review), but I can answer the third one. Surprisingly, the review authors chose to discuss only FOUR curcumin clinical trials. But it isn’t just that: they essentially admit that it would be pointless for them to examine the results of ALL the curcumin trials…for the purposes of their review, that is. And so they chose four “archetypical” curcumin trials that support their thesis…their thesis, that is, that curcumin is useless, therapeutically speaking.

I found that astounding.

I mean, how would you react if I declared the following, for example:

Premise: I have 135 neighbors (135 = same number of curcumin trials).
Thesis: all my neighbors have dogs.
Proof: I leaned out of my study window one day and saw 4 of my neighbors (4 = same number of clinical trials checked in the review) walking their dogs.
Conclusion: all my neighbors have dogs.

Of course, you’d say that’s ridiculous. And you would be right.

You can’t just consider the specific trials that support your theory.

This means that if you are making sweeping statements about curcumin, it is indeed NOT “beyond the scope” of your work to look at ALL the trials that have results. But that is what seems to have occurred here.

Note: the review authors tell us that they chose these trials because the data is available on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Um, I’d like to point out that there are curcumin clinical trial results in PubMed, too…

Let’s look at their first choice, which I thought was quite interesting for a variety of reasons, as we will see:

The goal of a recent University of Rochester study testing curcumin on breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy was to reduce radiation-caused dermatitis. Its results, the review authors say, are “inconclusive.”

I looked up the results on the clinical trial website (as far as I know, and as far as the review authors know, the results have not been published anywhere else yet), and yes, true, there was not much difference between the Mean Radiation Dermatitis Severity Scores of the two groups: 2.02 in the curcumin group, 1.99 in the placebo group.

However, I didn’t stop there.

I found a previous University of Rochester clinical trial, in which curcumin was tested on a group of breast cancer patients. Same group of researchers, same center (University of Rochester), same everything, including dosage, except that in this trial, there were only 30 women, compared to 686 women in the second trial.

The results of the smaller clinical trial led the University of Rochester researchers to state the following:

“In conclusion, oral curcumin, 6.0 g daily during radiotherapy, reduced the severity of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.” And, quoting from the full study: “Overall, although curcumin did not completely prevent radiation dermatitis in this trial, the reduction in moist desquamation is clinically significant and suggests improved quality of life during RT.”

You can read the abstract and download the full study (for free) here: goo.gl/SRVLI2

Now, in order to understand why there were such different results between the two trials, we will just have to wait for the full study to be published…Pointless to speculate about results without having access to all the information, right?

Note: the review authors chose not to mention the earlier, smaller trial, even though it had results (in fact, very good results), and even though it was carried out at the same center…and, let me add, even though the full study was published online…and for free, as we have seen.

Well, I suppose it’s clear at this point that I didn’t just look at the clinical trials website. I also checked out PubMed where I found a number of curcumin clinical trials whose results are “successful,” at least in my opinion. And that includes the Australian curcumin trials, which concern us, in particular…

But it’s time for lunch now, and then I have stuff to do, so I have to leave it at that, for today. Ciao!!! 🙂

“Why I’ve ditched statins for good.”

March 26, 2014 / Margaret / 2 Comments

This post was inspired by a fascinating article I read this morning (many thanks to Libby for the link!) written by a vascular surgeon and published in The Telegraph just a few days ago: http://goo.gl/Es1XXS Please have a look…It’s a very good read.

Personal story: my Dad has always had high cholesterol and took statins for a while, many many many years ago, on the advice of his doctor. Dad’s follow-up blood test results did show a decrease in his “bad” (= LDL) cholesterol, but his “good” (HDL) cholesterol had decreased, too. This meant that his actual risk of developing heart disease went up, not down. And so, with his doctor’s approval, he stopped taking statins immediately. So far, so good…knock on wood!

I have inherited this familial high cholesterol loveliness, but I have never taken statins. And then, some time after I began taking curcumin (= more than eight years ago, yippeeee!), I noticed a decrease in my cholesterol AND an even more significant decrease in my triglycerides. My cholesterol is currently much lower than it was in the pre-curcumin period, and that, coupled with my decreased triglycerides, has taken my heart disease risk down to zilch, practically–one of the many beneficial side effects of curcumin. Incidentally, the same has happened to my Dad–once he began taking curcumin, his cholesterol went down. And it has stayed down.

So WHY aren’t doctors prescribing curcumin instead of statins, which come with a host of side effects (increased risk of developing diabetes, among other, er, pleasant things)…side effects that curcumin definitely doesn’t have, by the way…

Well, I think we can all figure out the answer to that question…! (See also the Telegraph article for more on this.)

And now, under new guidelines, it looks as though a lot more people in the U.S.A. will be “eligible” to take these drugs (I’m sure big pharma is celebrating big time!). Unbelievable. See: http://goo.gl/q7N7Xg

No, of course I’m not saying that nobody at all should be on statins. Perhaps they do help some folks (= the big pharma CEO bank accounts, in particular! 😉 ). I’m just saying that I personally would never ever take them. And I’m very glad my Dad isn’t taking them anymore (and my sister, too, btw).

The Telegraph article gives us a lot of food for thought–the surgeon’s dietary changes (sugar), the fact that statins decrease CRP (= C-reactive protein), which is also a marker for myeloma…but then, curcumin decreases CRP, too…and, again, without all the potentially very nasty side effects…

And here is more food for thought: “In my view, high total blood cholesterol or high LDL levels no more cause heart attacks than paramedics cause car crashes, even though they are present at the scene. Just lowering cholesterol with drugs without sorting out the dietary and lifestyle factors that actually cause heart disease is nonsensical.” Interesting, huh?

The article also discusses the results of a Norwegian cholesterol study that followed 52,000 men and women with no pre-existing heart disease, for a period of ten years: “The results for women were crystal clear. The lower a woman’s total cholesterol, the greater her risk of dying, either of heart disease or anything else, including cancer. This reflects findings in previous studies.” Wow.

Okay, that definitely did it for me. I’m keeping my still high-ish but not-as-high-as-before cholesterol!

Thankful…

December 3, 2013 / Margaret / 2 Comments

I know, I know. Thanksgiving 2013 is over, so I should have written this post last week. But, to be honest, I don’t celebrate Thanksgiving over here in Italy, so I can be thankful any day, right?

It happened on Saturday, as I was baking my first batches of Christmas cookies (I spent the entire weekend baking like a madwoman, while listening, dancing and singing to all sorts of music…until I ran out of butter, that is…bah…I mean, how can a baker RUN OUT OF BUTTER????).

Sure, I’ve always known this to be true, but it really hit me on Saturday. Simply put, I realized how lucky I am to have someone like Stefano in my life…My tall, dark, handsome, totally devoted ( to me, of course!!!), brilliantly intelligent and wickedly funny Italian sweetie…

Now, what I’m about to write is going to sound even cornier, but here goes anyway: I really doubt that two people could love each other more than we do. What binds us isn’t “just” love, actually: we have a lot of fun together, we share many of the same interests (bird watching, traveling, cats, etc.)…list goes on…and on…and we’re best friends…AND he scratches my back in bed (= one of the reasons I married him, in fact, hehe)…Ti amo tantissimo, Stefano.

OKAY! Quick change of topic, before this post gets too gooey and starts melting the blog!!! 😉

I have an update on my test results. Yesterday I spoke with my doctor who told me that my myeloma has indeed “moved” a little bit, as I already suspected. He added, however, that it’s probably because I fell off the curcumin wagon (by taking a lower dose, that is…stooooopid me!), and that my test results in late January or early February will be better. For the record: I think so, too. Ah, in case you’re wondering (I wondered, too), this doesn’t mean I’m not smoldering anymore. We’ll just have to see how my next results are (and the ones after that).

He did note the fact that many of my important markers, such as B2M and CRP, haven’t budged at all (or have, indeed, improved a bit). A very good sign, he said. So he feels sure that I can knock the myeloma back to where it was…a gentle knock, mind you (my doctor and I don’t believe in throwing kitchen sinks, as the saying goes, but rather in giving gentle pushes in the right direction…). All in all, therefore, it was a very positive discussion…

I’ve added 1.5 grams of quercetin to my daily dose of 8 grams of C3 Complex curcumin, and I’m probably going to add some ashwagandha (see my “article” on the right, titled “ashwaganda/withanolides”), which did me so well on two separate occasions in the past. And, since my parathyroid is a bit up, too, I’m also taking vitamin D…

Gentle pushes…

Oh, my doctor gave me a welcome bit of news: my albumin levels are about the same as they were last time. I was looking at the wrong result, duh. That is a huge relief…So I am going to correct my recent test result post in that sense…

Another, unrelated!, bit of news: I’m leaving for the United States on Saturday. This Saturday, Dec 7th. I’m going to be staying with my parents for about ten days, then the three of us are driving to Logan Airport in Boston where we’re going to meet up with Stefano (flying in the same day from Italy). The four of us are then getting on a plane to Arizona. We’re spending our Xmas holiday in Phoenix (where Stefano and I have NEVER been!) with my sister and niece, my niece’s family, plus a nephew and his daughter. This reunion was planned months ago…We haven’t all been together for YEARS now, so, well, I can’t wait!!! Verrrrrry exciting!

No promises, but I’ll try to read, and post about, a couple of studies before leaving… 🙂

Curcumin beats chemoresistance and helps thalidomide and bortezomib fight myeloma

April 30, 2009 / / 14 Comments

A new study, carried out by a group of MD Anderson researchers and published this month in “Molecular Cancer Therapeutics” (see abstract: http://tinyurl.com/c2hlfx) confirms what we already knew about curcumin’s synergy with bortezomib.*

The researchers performed experiments on myeloma cells and also on nude mice. Now, since I frequently read about “nude mice,” some time ago I gathered the courage to do a bit of research… almost wish I hadn’t!…at any rate, these mice are simply hairless (hence their nickname “nude”), not in need of a new set of clothes. Most importantly, though, due to a genetic mutation, they are born without a thymus and thus have an inhibited immune system, which means that they are not able to reject tissue or tumour grafts (they also have little or no defence against viruses and all sorts of nasty stuff, poor dears). Therein lies their usefulness.

Now, let me state that, after reading about nude mice, not to speak of other lab animals!, I finally stopped regretting that I didn’t choose science as my major in college and grad school. Ah yes, I’d have been the crazy student taking all the nude mice home, wrapping them in warm shawls and keeping them as pets…hmmm, something tells me that my brilliant scientific career wouldn’t have lasted very long…

Okay, now that that is all cleared up, and I have admitted publicly to how silly I am, let’s proceed. An important result of this new study is that curcumin inhibited the proliferation of human multiple myeloma cells regardless of their sensitivity to dexamethasone, doxorubicin, or melphalan. The wonderful orange powder also helped bortezomib and thalidomide kill myeloma cells by reducing NF-kappaB’s incessant hyperactivity (=a bad BAD thing!), which also affected the gene products under its control (cyclin D1, etc.).

Going on to the full study, now (grazieeee, Sherlock!). After a paragraph dealing with the usual dire myeloma statistics, blablabla, we find out that the researchers used C3 Complex, the curcumin that I (and many others) take. Good to know.

And then we get to the actual experiment, which I will try to summarize. The nude mice were divided into four groups: 1. the control group, which was treated just with corn oil and saline; 2. the curcumin alone group (1 gram of curcumin per kilogram…holy cats, that seems like a LOT! Ah no, wait, see my footnote**); 3. the bortezomib alone group, and 4. the curcumin and bortezomib combo group.

25 days after the treatment start date, the mice were killed, and their tumours examined. Skipping the long and detailed explanation of how this process was carried out, let’s get to the results. Compared with the other three groups, the biggest tumours were in the control group, as to be expected. There was instead a significant decrease in tumour volume in both the curcumin and bortezomib groups, i.e., 2 and 3. But in group 4, the combo group, the tumours were even smaller: When examined for tumor volume on different days, we found that curcumin + bortezomib combination was much more effective in reducing the tumor volume compared with either agent alone.

As for thalidomide, the researchers used myeloma cells treated with curcumin in combination either with bortezomib or thalidomide and found that Curcumin potentiated the apoptotic effect of bortezomib from 25% to 85% and thalidomide from 10% to 75%. Not bad at all…

Another interesting titbit, for those who remember my PARP cleavage post: When we examined the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage, which indicates caspase-3 activation, a well-known characteristic of apoptosis, we found that curcumin potentiated the effect of bortezomib and thalidomide. In this particular case, curcumin worked better with thalidomide.

Now for the Discussion part: First, cells resistant to chemotherapeutic agents have been shown to express increased activation of NF-kB and suppression of this NF-kB can sensitize the cells to the drug. Second, multiple myeloma cells and mantel cell lymphoma are known to express constitutive active NF-kB that is resistant to bortezomib. Fairly clear, no?

Then we get to an interesting titbit concerning CRP: C-reactive protein, whose expression is regulated by NF-kB, has been shown to enhance the proliferation of myeloma cells and protect myeloma cells from chemotherapy-induced apoptosis both in vitro and in vivo. Among other things, CRP also increases the production of IL-6 with which it works synergistically to protect myeloma cells from chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Bad stuff…!

Other proteins that help myeloma cells become resistant to the attacks of chemo drugs are cyclin D1, the members of the infamous Bcl family and survivin. I have posted about all of these buggers. At any rate, the study confirms that curcumin down-regulates all of them…as we already knew from previous posts.

Like curcumin, bortezomib inhibits the activation of NF-kappaB, but through different mechanisms. As follows: Bortezomib inhibits the proteasome, resulting in the accumulation of IkBa, whereas curcumin prevents IkB phosphorylation, thus blocking its subsequent ubiquitination and degradation through suppression of upstream kinase IKK. Thus, these different mechanisms of NF-kB suppression provide the rationale for combining these agents to effectively inhibit NF-kB activation. Now, even if we don’t understand the meaning of all this, what is clear is that curcumin and bortezomib attack myeloma cells and reduce NF-kB activity in different ways. And that is exactly why, when combined, they work better than when they are used alone.

Another useful characteristic of curcumin: it can help alleviate fatigue and peripheral neuropathy, which are common side effects of the conventional chemo drugs used to treat myeloma. Indeed, the study states that these effects can be REVERSED by curcumin. No comment needed here, methinks…

The study ends with a very strong statement: In conclusion, the chemoresistance remains a major challenge in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma as well as other cancers. Multiple myeloma patients who have relapsed after conventional dose chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation are typically treated with high-dose corticosteroids, thalidomide, or bortezomib. However, a large number of these patients do not respond to treatment with these agents. Moreover, prolonged exposure leads to the development of resistance and toxicity, and progression-free and overall survival times for multiple myeloma patients are short. The ability of curcumin to suppress NF-kB activation, down-regulate the expression of cyclin D1 and Bcl-xL, inhibit cell proliferation, potentiate the effects of bortezomib and thalidomide, and overcome chemoresistance provides a sound basis for conducting clinical trials with curcumin, alone or in combination with other agents, to enhance treatment efficacy, reduce toxicity, and overcome chemoresistance of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

*Probably based on the fact that I mention chemo treatments from time to time, especially bortezomib (Velcade), more than a few readers have asked me if I have ever had any conventional treatments. The answer is no. For more on that, please see “My Discovery of Curcumin” page, which, er, needs some updating, for instance I have been taking curcumin for more than three years now, not just two…but anyway, the basic info is there.

**When I first saw that 1 g/kg (or 1000 mg/kg) of curcumin was the daily dose administered to the nude mice in group 2 and 4, I thought that that would translate into a massive amount of curcumin for humans. But then I vaguely recalled that there were differences between mice and humans, other than the, uhm, rather obvious ones. And I remembered that there was a way to convert doses from mice to humans. A bit of research led me to a 2008 study (http://tinyurl.com/cv6opy) dealing with this very topic and providing, yay!, the converting formula. So, unless my math is even worse than I thought (!), based on this formula and a 60 kg human being, 1000 mg/kg x 3 = 3000; 3000 : 37 = 81 x 60 = 4860 mg/daily dose. That means: less than 5 grams of curcumin a day in human terms. So for the past three years plus I have been taking a larger dose of curcumin than was used in this study. Interesting. And finally, an appeal to all my blog-reading math whizzes: would you mind checking my calculations? Thanks! It just seems way too simple, that’s all…

IL-1beta involved in progression from inactive to active myeloma

February 1, 2009 / / 23 Comments

I found out about this wonderful little gem from a couple of myeloma list friends (thank you both so very much, D & D!). It’s an editorial (see: http://tinyurl.com/b7z59z) on a Mayo Clinic study titled “Targeting the Pathogenic Role of Interleukin 1beta in the Progression of Smoldering/Indolent Myeloma to Active Disease,” (abstract: http://tinyurl.com/acqlkb; full study: http://tinyurl.com/akqd4r). I haven’t read the full study yet (I will read it tomorrow…it requires more attention and care than I can give it at the moment: ). Both can be found in the February 2009 Mayo Clinic Proceedings. At any rate, I am basing my post on the editorial (shorter and easier to read than the full study…).

47 patients, all at the inactive or smouldering myeloma stage (=my stage) but at high risk of progression, participated in the Mayo study, which was carried out between 2002 and 2007. The idea was to answer the fundamental question: WHAT THE HECK makes folks progress from inactive to active myeloma?

Apparently what happens is that IL-1beta, another of those beastly pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic cytokines, induces marrow stromal cells to produce large amounts of interleukin 6 (IL-6), thereby promoting the survival and expansion of the myeloma cells.

The researchers confirmed their theory that reducing the activity of IL-1beta does, in fact, significantly increase progression-free survival (PFS) in these high-risk patients. This is extraordinary!

And now read this: blocking IL-1beta reduces IL-6 as well as the proangiogenic chemokine IL-8, therefore the use of IL-1beta-blocking strategies may result in new standards of therapy for high-risk patients with SMM/IMM. WOWIE!!!

In the study, all the smouldering myeloma patients were given anakinra, an IL-1beta inhibitor that is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and autoinflammatory diseases. I should add that 25 patients were also given a low dose of dexamethasone. Two of the them remained stable for about four years, and in fact, at the time of this writing, progression to active disease has not yet occurred […]. Since, as I mentioned, I haven’t yet read the actual study, I don’t know what happened in the other 23 cases…

Another significant excerpt from the editorial: In the study, patients with a decrease in CRP levels were more likely to have stable disease, confirming that effectively blocking IL-1beta (using CRP levels as the marker for IL-1beta activity) can halt progression to active myeloma.

Halt progression to active myeloma…aaaaah, how sweet those five little words sound…

Hmmm, but WHY am I so excited that I could skip and dance all around my study (probably will, as soon as I post this)?

Because, drum roll!, CURCUMIN INHIBITS IL-1BETA!!! (See, e.g.: http://tinyurl.com/b7yr3j and http://tinyurl.com/bgqud4) There are heaps of studies on this topic, in fact, probably much much better than the above two that I found after a lightning search…but right now I am too elated and, well, in a bit of a hurry–it’s almost dinnertime–to see if I can find the perfect one…I just want to go ahead and post this bit of good news!

More good news: curcumin is not the only one. Here is a list of the other natural IL-1beta inhibitors that I have found thus far (ah, but my quest has only just begun, so there will probably be more…):

1. quercetin (strongly) http://tinyurl.com/dfy39r and http://tinyurl.com/c6v3np

2. omega-3 http://tinyurl.com/c2ksmg

3. genistein http://tinyurl.com/cbtpsr

4. EGCG http://tinyurl.com/andmdj

5. resveratrol http://tinyurl.com/cmnayw

6. ellagic acid (on my to-be-tested list) http://tinyurl.com/bgvutf

I will stop here because I want to go give my husband a big bear hug…and do another little jig of joy around the room on the way! Yippity yippity doodle! Evvaiiiii, grandeeeee!!! 🙂

Very sad news…

December 22, 2008 / / 3 Comments

Yesterday a dear blog friend informed me that his beloved wife of 59 years passed away last week after developing a nasty lung infection. Oh, I am very very sorry…and since I cannot give you a real-life hug, I am sending you the biggest blog hug that I can fabricate.

Today’s post is based on a long, fascinating message he wrote to me in April 2007 (less than a month after I embarked upon my blogging journey) and an e-mail he wrote to me yesterday. He is my first blog friend, my first blog mentor…as well as one of my most faithful readers. He has both encouraged and challenged me in many ways.

And I hope you will continue to do so, my dear dear friend.

My friend’s wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in 1993. By 1998 her neurologist declared that there was nothing left to be done, and my friend should prepare for the inevitable: death. This, he writes, was his wake-up call. Until then, he had been the “typical citizen, relying on our physicians to take care of our health problems, but upon hearing there was nothing they could do for [name omitted], I decided if anyone was going to help her it had to be me. But what to do and how to do it?” He set a goal for himself, which was to search the world for known, safe alternative substances that might offer the possibility of slowing down or arresting her decline, maybe buying her some time so that the ongoing extensive medical research might produce in that time more effective drugs than were then available.

My friend spent the following six months online. He learned the medical jargon and read everything he could about AD. He found out on his own what was going on in research labs all over the world. He reached out to everyone he knew for tips. And slowly but surely he compiled a list of mainly alternative treatments, checking each item carefully with his wife’s new, more open-minded neurologist.

He tested promising plant extracts on himself before administering them to his wife. Even so, though, he proceeded with extreme caution, giving her doses of each alternative in small, gradual increments, while closely monitoring her with appropriate blood tests. He also took notes of any improvements and recorded her responses to ensure that no adverse side effects occurred.

A very important note: he believes, and so do I!, that people with AD (or myeloma or any other type of “disease,” for that matter) should not attempt to do what he did unless they have the full support and backup of their attending physician.

After he began administering curcumin and fish oil to his wife, her decline stopped. She even showed a few signs of cognitive improvement, which, he writes, is real progress in a disease where there is almost never progress.

His message ends with some excellent advice:

1) Never give up hope.

2) Seek and you shall find.

3) Today everyone has in the Internet an empowerment tool that can change their life and health, if they will only learn how to effectively use that tool. Knowledge brings power.

4) Each of us should take charge of our health, even as we expect our doctors to take charge of our illness. But doctors don’t get paid for keeping us well, so we must do the job.

5) Yet in our illnesses we can help the doctor help us the most when we learn as much as we can absorb about the illness and the treatment.

6) Sharing with others what we have learned about dealing with an illness or even just how to stay healthy can produce benefits to the giver as well as the receiver.

Margaret's Corner

Tag: curcumin